A reply on Libby commutation: on Clinton "perjury" and Libby's convictions
I found this site when I googled '"timothy noah"+libby" -- the link goes to the post.
I must say I'm unimpressed that Noah's argument swayed you so easily. Bill Clinton said he didn't have "sex" instead of volunteering that he had "oral sex" instead of "sexual intercourse." Taking the question "Did you have sex?" literally, he may have had some kind of sex, but sex-proper is sexual intercourse, which he did not have with "that woman". For myself, I would not say I had "sex" if had non-penetrative relations. I do not believe the argument, then, that Bill Clinton committed "perjury."
Not to mention the fact that Clinton was never indicted by the federal judiciary -- his impeachment came from a vindictive majority in the House, and in the Senate, 55 senators voted "not guilty," and 45 voted "guilty" on the charge of perjury.
Now, do you see the irony of your conclusion? "But a commutation - that actually makes sense. For the future, however, I say come down hard on presidential administration officials when the commit a crime - whether they be Democrat or Republican." Uh, sorry, Libby *did* commit said crime. Why punish in the future but not now? What kind of principle is that?
And perjury and obstruction of justice aren't petty crimes.
I just keep thinking of what Republicans would be doing if a Democrat outed an undercover Jack Bauer-type CIA agent. There'd be a treason charge, likely, because, you know, Republicans are "tough on crime" (except for their own).
Outing an undercover CIA agent is an act of treason, and Libby lied to protect Bush and Cheney, who disregard and break American law, and are thus treasonous.
The best way to prevent crime is not to say "for the future...come down hard on...officials when the [sic] commit a crime...", but to prosecute and punish criminals.
Also, Slate is not "liberal"-proper and Andrew Sullivan is definitely not "conservative"-proper.
No profanes - sacred